The Perceptions of the Human-Nature Relationship among Organic ...

The Perceptions of the Human-Nature Relationship among Organic
Farmers in Minnesota 1
Milena Klimek, Bernhard Freyer, Rebecca Paxton
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendel Straße 33 A-1180 Wien,
Österreich.
Correspondence to: Milena.klimek@boku.ac.at
Keywords: Organic farming, resilience, human-nature relationships
Abstract
Evidence suggests that organic farmers have clear views in how they speak about and practice
their relationships with nature. We begin exploring this relationship through discussions with
organic farmers about their reflections and practices of their individual human-nature relationships
through three farmer focus groups in the Midwestern region of the US. In this preliminary paper,
we identify the specific relationships between ethical frameworks and human-nature relationships,
which we then correlate to farm resiliency practices. We conclude by suggesting what
consequences this might have for individual farms as well as how to proceed with this study.
Introduction
Farmers interpret and construct their relationships with nature based upon the various values that
they attach to nature (Glaeser, 2001). It is these relationships between humans and nature in
which we explore among organic farmers in Minnesota. In an age of many disturbances, some of
which are unprecedented in human history—i.e. climate change, resource shortage, and global
financial crisis—organic farming, as a key proponent of the sustainability movement (Pugliese,
2001; Rigby & Caceres, 2001; Bellon & Lamine, 2009), needs to adjust to such change, also
affecting smaller scales such as at the farm level, through cultivating resilience. Farmer
practices—informed from a variety of influences including their ethical viewpoints—can influence
the resilience of their individual farms by enhancing the ability of an organic farm to adapt to
change without jeopardizing the organic system in play. In this article we therefore examine the
importance of the various environmental ethical backgrounds of farmers, and how these
backgrounds influence the practices and the reflections of organic farmers.
In this paper we posit that farmer’s ethical views on nature influence their relationship with nature,
in which this understanding ultimately affects the resilience of their individual farms. Organic
agriculture can be expressed through understandings and practices in which the natural system
(ecosystem) and the social system are related to each other (Brand & Jax, 2007). In order to
recognize how these understandings between farmer and nature are expressed and what
practices are taking place we identify organic farmers’ ethical views. In understand farmers’
human-nature relations resulting from their ethical views, we use their reflections and refer to their
concrete practices. According to the preliminary framework we use in this paper, we accept
normative values as part of what create these reflections and practices. We categorize their
relationships by using practice theory 2— focusing on daily routines and the reproduction of
actions and reflections—which enable us to obtain empirical information on the relationship of
1 This work is in its preliminary stages, we hope that discussion will generate ideas and suggestions for analysis of a complete data set
in a PhD project
2 Practice Theory, originally presented by Pierre Bourdieu has been recently tackled and expanded by a whole slough of interested
parties, see additionally: (Giddens, 1987; Bourdieu, 1990) and (Reckwitz, 2002)
1

specific farmers and nature through their practices, i.e. doings and sayings. Based upon these
practices and reflections, we begin to examine how farmers’ human-nature relationships influence
the resilience of their farms.
Due in part to sets of regulations and standards, organic farmers practice and reflect upon a set
of human-nature relationships that are distinct from those of non-organic farmers (Beus & Dunlap,
1990). These differences are supported by diverging understandings of how humans should
interact with nature in agricultural systems, and are thus founded upon different ethical
frameworks (Alrøe & Kristensen, 2000). Farmers draw upon these human-nature relationships to
form a holistic view of their agricultural practices and reflections (Beus & Dunlap, 1990; Abaidoo
& Dickinson, 2002; De Wit & Verhoog, 2007). Current conventional agricultural ethics support the
objectification of nature—with increasing yield and profit with lower prioritization of ecosystem,
animal, and even human welfare—and therefore, the separation and division of nature from
society (Goodman, 1999). Since its beginnings, the organic farming movement has been defined
by human-nature relationships which recognized humans’ complex interactions with nature, and
therefore respected linked human-nature dependencies, such as upon the soil and other
ecological processes (Conford, 2001). This maintenance / improvement of soil remains a core
tenet of organic agriculture today, because this is believed to sustain both plants and animals
(including humans) (Kaltoft, 2001).
The consideration of nature in organic agriculture is influenced, to varying degrees, by the ethical
and moral viewpoints of farmers, and may therefore differentiate organic agriculture from other
similar systems (Kaltoft, 2001): the understanding of “…ecology changes our values by changing
our concepts of the world and of ourselves in relation to the world” (Callicott, 1982, p. 174). The
organic movement adds to the agricultural system an ethical stance that moves away from an
individualistic ethic, and focuses instead upon family, community and global issues; including
other forms of life such as animals, plants and ecosystems as a whole (Alrøe & Kristensen, 2003).
Such an ethical stance illustrates the important influence ethics have on farmers and their
relationship to nature, guiding their practices, and to the development of organic farming
(Mansfield, 2004). It is, therefore, important to understand these specific relationships, of farmers’
ethical viewpoints and how they affect their relationships towards nature through practices, in
detail.
Even though unified under one name and assuming similar standards, organic farmers’ views of
human-nature relationships do vary and are often conflicting, as shown by the debate over
organic certification for aquatic animals (Mansfield, 2004). Many farmers - as well as
organizations, certifiers (e.g. Bio Austria, IFOAM, Demeter, Oregon Tilth, etc…), and consumers -
develop their own definitions of organic which include ethics of reduced human-nature division
(Greger, 2007). Thus, organic farmers’ views of nature cannot be summarized simply and
coherently in a single ethical framework. Furthermore, organic farmers’ relations to nature
frequently lead to a wide variety of often contradictory reflections and practices of human-nature
relationships, which are composed of individual classification schemes (Kaltoft, 2001; Mansfield,
2004).
The various human-nature relationships, which are products of individual ethical frameworks, lead
organic farmers to practice and reflect upon organic in diverse ways. The organic agricultural
system therefore develops in a non-linear fashion (Goodman, 1999; Van Der Ploeg, 2000), which
allows farmers the freedom to adapt to and change without jeopardizing the organic system at
work and thereby maintain the resilience of individual farms (for specific resilience criteria see
2

section 3.2 and Table 2). In the remainder of this article we identify the specific ethical views
individual organic farmers hold about nature, which helps explain the farmers’ human-nature
relationships in the form of doings and sayings. Furthermore, we begin to examine how this
interplay generally influences the overall resilience of their farms.
Objectives and methodology
Our main objective is to learn how organic farmers reflect upon and practice their relationships to
nature, and how this may affect the resilience of farm systems. We divide this objective into three
working steps:
• The identification of the ethical foundations of farmers’ human-nature relationships
• The identification and interpretation of empirical cases of farmers’ doings and sayings on
nature and the ethical underpinnings of these doings and sayings.
• Preliminary interpretation of farmer doings and sayings related to resilience
Our working steps are as follows: Based upon a literature review, we first (in section 3) give an
overview of relevant environmental ethical concepts (Table 1) and systemic resilience that serve
as our theoretical background. In section 4 we present on our empirical research showing how
organic farmers reflect upon and practice their human-nature relationships. We examine six
farmers (Table 3) from farmer focus groups conducted in Minnesota, in the Midwest region of the
US, which were purposively chosen in order to convey a spectrum of environmental ethics. The
farmers’ doings and sayings were inductively analyzed using grounded theory. Drawing upon
practice theory (Schatzki, 2010), the individual farmers’ doings and sayings were used to
categorize their relationships with nature according to existing categories of environmental ethics
(Table 4). In section 5 we begin to discuss the effects of the identified farmer-nature relationships
upon the systemic resilience of the farm (Table 5), and finally in section 6 we conclude with
findings and suggestions for deepening the initial findings.
Identification of theoretical foundations
Environmental ethical concepts
In this section we provide a brief overview of four widely acknowledged Western environmental
ethical concepts that are relevant for interpreting the relationships of farmers to nature (Table 1).
While there is a broader debate over the diverse interpretations of these and other ethical
concepts, in the context of this analysis these four concepts offer an important variety to interpret
the main farmer-nature relationships and their effects upon the resilience of organic farms (Folke,
2006). In the following chapters we will use these concepts to categorize farmers’ ethics.
3

Table 1. Four common human-nature relationships and how they may be practiced in agriculture
View/s of Human-Nature Relationship
Anthropocentric
Theocentric
Biocentric
Eco-holism
Humans take hierarchical precedence over nature; The value of nature is mainly
instrumental (Nash, 1989; Elmore, 1996)
Nature and all that lies within is God’s creation, and humans are to act as stewards of
those creations (Schaefer, 2009; Gudorf, 2012).
Non-human value of nature is recognized in plants and animals (Nash, 1989; Kirchmann &
Thorvaldsson, 2000)
A non-anthropocentric belief, which blends ecocentrism and holism in which non-human
value of nature is recognized as holistic systems i.e. ecosystems and the benefits soils
and minerals have in such systems, as well as the intrinsic value of nature (Nash, 1989;
Sterba, 2003; Hay, 2010)
Practices of Human-Nature Relationship (In Farming)
Anthropocentric Intensive systems, high-yielding crops and livestock for as little investment (time
and money) as possible
Theocentric Farmers need to manage God’s creation, to use but not abuse
Biocentric Focuses on closing the cycle by producing own inputs and using outputs; high
focus on the soil
Eco-holism Closed-cycle focus; recognizing the importance of soils and diversity and
integrating that in practices;, using nature as a model to grow polyculture crops
and healthy animals
Resilience
In this section we seek to correlate the concept of resilience with specific reflections and practices
of organic farmers that are based upon their human-nature relationships and rooted in their
ethical frameworks. Thus, we will show how particular human-nature relationships could
strengthen the resilience of an organic farm.
Because of the joint history of resilience and ecological systems research, resilience has been
limitedly researched in relation to farming systems, not to mention organic systems (Milestad &
Darnhofer, 2003), with almost no empirical examples (exception: Milestad & Hadatsch, 2003),
and not in connection to farmers’ ethical viewpoints. With this research we intend to add to the
few examples of theoretical organic farm resilience linked with empirical examples.
Resilience is the capacity of a system to adapt to and absorb disturbances while essentially
retaining the same function, structure and identity (C. Holling, 1973, 1996; Walker et al., 2002;
Milestad & Darnhofer, 2003; Walker et al., 2004; Folke, 2006). Finding resilience in complex
systems 3 such as organic agriculture can ensure a future more stable system by remaining
flexible for possible uncertainties that are difficult to forecast. Three important features are
considered to maintain stability (including flexibility) of a system during change (Carpenter et al.,
2001; Walker, et al., 2002; Berkes et al., 2003; Milestad & Darnhofer, 2003; Folke, 2006):
• The ability to absorb change—including the amount of change a system can handle to
maintain stability
• The capability of a system to self-organize and network—in which the ability to control
such networking determines the fate of the system
3 Systems including non-linear dynamics, thresholds, uncertainty, gradual and rapid change and their exchange, as well as
systems that cross temporal and spatial scales (Folke, 2006).
4

• Capacity building for learning and adaptation—allowing for diverse inputs of knowledge
supported by feedback from their use
Table 2 takes these three important features in maintaining stability within a system and gives
examples of each in context of farm resilience.
Table 2. Three features of resiliency and examples on farm level
The ability to absorb
change (Carpenter, et al.,
2001)
Features of Farm Resiliency
-Diversity: crops, animals,
markets, customers
(Berkes, et al., 2003)
-How disturbance was
handled in the past (C. S.
Holling, 2001)
-Innovation (here, not
necessarily technological)
Features of Resiliency
The capability of a system to self-organize
and network (Milestad & Darnhofer, 2003)
-Balance of external (institutional) and internal
(farmer exchange) knowledge (Morgan &
Murdoch, 2000)
-Marketing networks
-Independence from external inputs (Milestad &
Darnhofer, 2003)
Capacity building for
learning and adaptation
(Berkes, et al., 2003; Milestad &
Darnhofer, 2003)
-Learning capacity
-Feedback capacity
In this preliminary study, we argue that ethics must be considered an underlying foundation for
these features of resilience. Farmers’ varying environmental ethics influence their farm practices,
which in turn affect the resilience of their farms. Direct connections between farm practices and
the above three resilience criteria are shown in Table 5.
Identification of farmer doings and sayings and their ethical underpinnings
In this chapter we describe the relationship of the six farmers to nature. All the interviewed
farmers are involved with organic agriculture though not all are certified organic. One farmer
mixes organic and conventional practices. Similarities between the farmers’ practices and
reflections (see Table 3), rooted in their human-nature relationships, and the four common
western ethical views (see Table 4) introduced in section 3 are examined.
Table 4 is examined using practice theory as a theoretical framework to understand the ethical
orientations of these diverse farmers through their doings (practices) and sayings (reflections).
Practice theory incorporates practical knowledge—an expression of every-day common actions,
happenings, doings and sayings, which are reproduced into habitual and embodied routines,
depicting human life (Warde, 2005; Schatzki, 2010). By examining our farmer focus groups
through Schatzki’s (2010) notion of doings and sayings, we can see what physical practices and
materialities align with farmers’ reflections of their ethical frameworks.
5

Table 3. Farmer and farm characteristics from empirical samples
Farmer Characteristics Farm Characteristics
F
a
r
m
e
r
Age G
e
n
d
e
r
Years
Farming
A 59 M 39
conventiona
l
B 51 M 30 overall,
previously
conventiona
l22 certified
organic
C 60 M 35 years
organic; 10
years
certified
organic
D 49
F
8 certified
organic
E 55 F 31 organic
22 certified
organic
Relevant
Beliefs
expressed
Likes to ‘mix old
(technologies)
with the new’
e.g. green
manures and
highboy sprayers
His Christian
religion affects
his practices,
concerned about
health,
Very conscious
about soils; and
focused on
education of the
public
Conscious about
environment,
sustainability as
a result of soils;
and on the local
farm board so
that organic is
represented
Previously an
environmental
educator,
integrates her
ecosystems
knowledge into
farming
F 54 F 38 organic Nature as a
religion; keen on
converting more
land
Farm
size
600
acres
250
acres
480
acres
75
acres
410
acres
100
acres
Type of
farm
Row
crops,
Wine
Row/Cash
crops
Converted
family
dairy farm
to freerange
beef
herd
Turkeys
Maple
syrup
Vegetable
s
Certified
Organic
No, uses
sustainabl
e practices
Specific practices Markets
GMOs; Heavy
machinery used,
participates in gov.
programs which
pay to leave land
fallow
Yes Family farm; Just
meets organic
standards, does
not participate in
gov. soil programs
Yes 4 grass plus
creeping alfalfa
grazing mix;
rotational grazing;
50 head of cattle
Yes Integration of
diversity, and small
scaling, including
soil conservation
Dairy farm Yes Closed system,
raising own stock
and feed for 65
milk cows,
environmental
buffers; smaller
field sizes
Vegetable
s Cash
crops
Yes Working on
educating young
farmers, incubator
projects
Convention
al
Traditional
outlet
Cooperative
stores;
wholesale;
restaurants
Schools;
farmers
markets;
local stores
Organic
Valley
cooperative
; farmers’
market
Cooperative
markets,
road-side
stand
6

Table 4. Organic farmers’ reflections and practices connected to ethical views
Farme
r
Human – Nature – Relation
Supporting quote or ‘sayings’* Supporting practices or
‘doings’
Related
Ethical
concepts
A
“I use this technology, these GMOs, I use round up… I
ah use modern technology, I am very conservative to my
approach to farming as far as ah when adopting
Applies modern technological
solutions to farming often,
uses GMOs, uses some
Anthropocentri
c
technology, I weigh the risks of bio technology versus sustainable practices such as
what is it going to do for me, ultimately am I gonna gain diversity of crops, for mainly
by this? and as fuel and energy prices rise, how is this what is seen as publicity and
gonna change how we do things now?... I've seen this in marketing, i.e. holding a
herbicides and you know, pesticides, it gets overused
overused overused, and nature always wins, I mean it
usually wins, it beats you…” 02:11:49-1**
vineyard; focused on profit
B
“well God gave us this earth to subdue it, and by the
sweat of our brow we are gonna make a living off of
it….my religion is very very central to my functioning on
a daily basis, I believe that both God the father the son
Believes that God gave him
the land he is working on with
a role of steward, but also the
expectation to work it and feed
Theocentric,
Anthropocentri
c
and the holy spirit are truth… TRUTH is what I base my others, he partakes in minimal
farming on, that's sustainability, if its not sustainable, it’s ‘organic’ practices, not going
not in God's truth.” 0:30:46-3**
above and beyond normal
C
“…we're certified organic, I have yet to find out how long
this will continue without adding fertilizer …I'm more
organic regulations to care for
environment or animals
Rotational grazing, observes
when the best time is for grass
Biocentric
focused on being satisfied with where we're at and to be grazed by his cattle,
letting/working with mother nature and living with what focusing on limiting herd size;
we receive from that instead of trying to climb the next environmental ideas are very
mountain and get the highest yield or whatever and I centered around his farming
think that it is very doable.” 0:54:47-1**
system
D
“I think this whole idea of of organic and sustainability
and community and family, its really about doing things
right... Its really about doing right by people and by the
Using very diverse markets,
diverse products and staying
very connected to the organic
Biocentric,
Eco-holistic
land and by NATURE… you have to find a way to work
WITH nature to work with the natural systems and and
that means as far as” human ecology and animal
ecology…” 1:05:17-2**
community
E
“…once you understand the interdependence and the
relationships that go on between the human resources
Has a naturalist background
and applied this when taking
Eco-holistic
and the natural resource base that’s at the foundation of over her father-in-law’s farm
our food system, really all those other pieces of organic looking at how natural systems
aren't so critical to me anymore because you're talking work and how to farm with
about your food and your water and you're talking about them; she also started many
social health and animal well being and ALL of those community efforts such as a
things that are at the core of organic…” 2:07:39-2** co-op and farmers’ market
F
“I am totally behind organic, but what I really care about
is environment… I had a strong relationship with the wild
Changing crop land into
perennial pasture, bringing it
Eco-holistic
crops that grew on any land that I was near as a child… ‘back to nature’, sharing
that I think I really developed nature as a religion for expertise and environmental
myself as a young child.” 1:27:45-2**
*Selected representative reference quote
values and work ethic with
others interested
**Three focus groups were conducted, recorded and transcribed. The time noted here corresponds to the point in time in
which the quote was taken from its various focus group. Focus group 1, conducted on February 11th, 2011 in Minnesota.
Focus group 2, conducted on February 28th, 2011 in Minnesota. Focus group 3, conducted on March 2nd, 2011 in
Minnesota.
Interpretation of farmer doings and sayings related to resilience
Table 4 allows comparison of different farmers and farm characteristics of the six cases, which
used with a representative ‘saying’ and a summary of ‘doings’ from each farmer, was able to help
identify which ethical concept each farmer correlates to. This information and identification aids in
determining the connection of the ethical views of farmers and the resiliency of their farms.
Literature concerning resilience and farming systems are predominantly preoccupied with
deepening resilience’s theoretical concepts, rather than it’s practical application and the analysis
7

of empirical data (one exception for organic farming systems is Milestad & Hadatsch, 2003). In
this initial study, however, we show an empirical connection to resilience theory. To understand
what our farmers’ doings and sayings tell us about resilience, we compare them to the criteria
important in maintaining the core stability of a system during change (see section 3.2, Table 2)
(Berkes, et al., 2003; Milestad & Darnhofer, 2003). These three features of resilience illustrate
how individual farming systems, due to farmers’ specific reflections and practices rooted in their
ethical views, differ in their potential for resilience.
In Table 5 four farmers from our preliminary empirical study have been chosen to represent the
four common western ethical viewpoints described in section 3.1. We compare these ethical
concepts with concrete examples of practices to the resiliency features of Table 2, in which the
three features of resiliency are broken down into criteria that are applicable to individual farms.
We use the comparison of these practices and the criteria of Table 2 to illustrate the diversity of
resilience among organic farmers due to environmental ethics, which determines the type of
ethical viewpoint that leads to the most resilient system.
Table 5. Connecting farmers’ environmental ethics to farm resilience through practices and
reflections
Example from
Farmers
Anthropocentric
(Farmer A)
Theocentric
(Farmer B)
Biocentric
(Farmer C)
Eco-holistic
(Farmer F)
Features of Resilience
The ability to absorb change The capability of a system
to self-organize and
network
Reduced diversity in crops and markets,
no animals; uses high-tech machinery—
not linked to innovation systems
Little diversity, only row-crops; not
involved in new innovations
Diversity is high with a rotating grazing
herd of beef cattle, and many acres of
grass/legume mixes and also feed crops;
Disturbance from dairy farm to beef herd
handled well; innovation high
A diversity crops as well as markets;
Housing development pushed them from
their family farm, and an oil pipeline
threatened their second—disturbance was
handled with remarkable outcomes;
innovation is high with farmer incubator
programs, working with cooperatives on
the farm and buying more land to
regenerate past ecological systems
Limited marketing network;
Dependent an inputs for
GMO crops
Limited marketing network;
less external inputs
Involved in high farmer
exchange of knowledge;
multiple marketing networks
including local;
independence from external
inputs due to rotation and
organic nature
High farmer and institutional
exchange; many marketing
networks including local;
independent from external
inputs due to crop rotation
Capacity building
for learning and
adaptation
N/A
Not involved in many
external groups for
learning and feedback
Heavily involved in
external farmer,
environmental and
consumer groups
Heavily involved in
external farmer,
environmental and
consumer groups;
leading a consulting
business for organic
farmers
*It is important to note that we are not making general statements about different types of farming, instead these examples
represent specific cases of a small number of farms chosen from our focus groups.
In connecting farmers’ ethical backgrounds to resilience, this table shows a spectrum of resilience
within organic farming, in which the more anthropocentric farm holds significantly less resilience
towards possible disturbances than the eco-holistic farm, due to the criteria of Table 2. This
raises the question of whether farmers with a more anthropocentric ethical orientation are in
general, part of a less resilient system. Such a system would have a lower diversity of crops and
markets, poor handling of disturbance, low use of innovation, relying heavily on information from
few sources, little to no local marketing networks, dependence on farm inputs, reduced learning
8

capacity, and limited chances to receive feedback (see Table 2). If this is the case, their farms
may be at risk. In contrast our data showed that those farmers with a more eco-holistic ethical
orientation, were part of a highly resilient system—i.e. farms that can handle change or risk
(Milestad & Darnhofer, 2003). The next steps for this research will be to deepen our theoretical
and empirical understanding of the connection between ethics and resilience through further case
study research into farmer ethics, human-nature relationships, and practices and reflections.
Conclusion
In this paper we first examined various organic farmers’ human-nature relationships – shown by
their reflections and practices - and correlated these with different categories of environmental
ethics. This was followed by a preliminary investigation of how farmers’ environmental ethical
concepts are connected to the resilience of their individual farms. This was achieved by
comparing farmers’ ethical backgrounds and practices to the resilience criteria in Table 2. The
initial results showed that organic farms tended to be less resilient in times of change or
disturbance when their ethical backgrounds are anthropocentric, and meet more of the resilience
criteria as they approach an eco-holistic ethical stance.
This study recognizes the importance of farmers’ environmental ethical backgrounds in forming
farmers’ doings and sayings, through which farm resilience is enhanced or lessened. However
this study is a preliminary exploration of these relationships and their importance for the resilience
of farms and possibly the organic movement as a whole. This study found initial evidence of the
impact of human-nature relationships upon farm resilience, and we therefore look to deepen and
strengthen our understanding of this relationship as this research progresses.
References
Abaidoo, S., & Dickinson, H. (2002). Alternative and Conventional Agricultural Paradigms:
Evidence From Farming in Southwest Saskatchewan*. Rural Sociology, 67(1), 114-131.
Alrøe, H. F., & Kristensen, E. S. (2000). Research, values, and ethics in organic agricultureexamples
from sustainability, precaution, nature quality, and animal welfare. Preprints
from Eursafe 2000: Two systems-One world, 61-65.
Alrøe, H. F., & Kristensen, E. S. (2003). Toward a systemic ethic: In search of an ethical basis for
sustainability and precaution. Environmental ethics, 25(1), 59-78.
Bellon, S., & Lamine, C. (2009). Conversion to Organic Farming: A Multidimensional Research
Object at the Crossroads of Agricultural and Social Sciences‚ A Review. Sustainable
Agriculture, 653-672.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems: building
resilience for complexity and change: Cambridge Univ Pr.
Beus, C. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1990). Conventional versus Alternative Agriculture: The
Paradigmatic Roots of the Debate*. Rural Sociology, 55(4), 590-616.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice: Stanford Univ Pr.
Brand, F. S., & Jax, K. (2007). Focusing the meaning (s) of resilience: resilience as a descriptive
concept and a boundary object. Ecology and society, 12(1:23), [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art23/).
Callicott, J. B. (1982). Hume’s Is/Ought Dichotomy and the Relation of Ecology to Leopold’s Land
Ethic Environmental Ethics 4, (163-174).
Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., & Abel, N. (2001). From metaphor to measurement:
resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4(8), 765-781.
Conford, P. (2001). The Origins of the Organic Movement. Edinburgh: Floris Books.
De Wit, J., & Verhoog, H. (2007). Organic values and the conventionalization of organic
agriculture. NJAS-wageningen journal of life sciences, 54(4), 449-462.
9

Elmore, R. W. (1996). Our relationship with the ecosystem and its impact on sustainable
agriculture. Journal of production agriculture, 9(1), 42-45.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems
analyses. Global environmental change, 16(3), 253-267.
Giddens, A. (1987). Social theory and modern sociology: Stanford Univ Pr.
Glaeser, B. (2001). The changing human-nature relationship (HNR) in the context of GEC:
Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
Goodman, D. (1999). Agro‚ Food Studies in the Age of Ecology: Nature, Corporeality, Bio‚ Politics.
Sociologia ruralis, 39(1), 17-38.
Greger, L. (2007). Bio Austria - Die neue Lust auf Werte. Ökologie & Landbau (144 ), 33-34.
Gudorf, C. E. (2012). Ecologies of Grace: Environmental Ethics and Christian Theology. By Willis
Jenkins. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 80(1), 248-252.
Hay, R. (2010). The relevance of ecocentrism, personal development and transformational
leadership to sustainability and identity. Sustainable Development, 18(3), 163-171.
Holling, C. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual review of ecology and
systematics, 4, 1-23.
Holling, C. (1996). Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience.
Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems.
Ecosystems, 4(5), 390-405.
Kaltoft, P. (2001). Organic farming in late modernity: at the frontier of modernity or opposing
modernity? Sociologia ruralis, 41(1), 146-158.
Kirchmann, H., & Thorvaldsson, G. (2000). Challenging targets for future agriculture. European
Journal of Agronomy, 12(3-4), 145-161.
Mansfield, B. (2004). Organic views of nature: The debate over organic certification for aquatic
animals. Sociologia ruralis, 44(2), 216-232.
Milestad, R., & Darnhofer, I. (2003). Building farm resilience: the prospects and challenges of
organic farming. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 22(3), 81-97.
Milestad, R., & Hadatsch, S. (2003). Organic farming and social-ecological resilience: the alpine
valleys of Sölktäler, Austria. Ecology and society, 8(1), 3.
Morgan, K., & Murdoch, J. (2000). Organic vs. conventional agriculture: knowledge, power and
innovation in the food chain1. Geoforum, 31(2), 159-173.
Nash, R. (1989). The rights of nature: A history of environmental ethics: Univ of Wisconsin Pr.
Pugliese, P. (2001). Organic farming and sustainable rural development: a multifaceted and
promising convergence. Sociologia ruralis, 41(1), 112-130.
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices. European journal of social theory, 5(2),
243.
Rigby, D., & Caceres, D. (2001). Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems.
Agricultural systems, 68(1), 21-40.
Schaefer, J. (2009). Theological foundations for environmental ethics: reconstructing patristic and
medieval concepts: Georgetown Univ Pr.
Schatzki, T. (2010). Materiality and social life. Nature and Culture, 5(2), 123-149.
Sterba, J. P. (2003). Morality in Practice. Independence: Wadsworth Publishing.
Van Der Ploeg, J. D. (2000). Revitalizing agriculture: farming economically as starting ground for
rural development. Sociologia ruralis, 40(4), 497-511.
Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cumming, G., Janssen, M., et al. (2002).
Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a
participatory approach. Conservation Ecology, 6(1), 14.
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and society, 9(2), 5.
Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of consumer culture, 5(2), 131.
10